A concept that was missing was the distinction between correlation and causation, which basically says that just because two things track each other does not mean that one causes the other. I would offer an additional perspective, but first some relevant facts.

Even though there is a trend toward more people claiming to be non-religious, that trend is greatly magnified among young people. It has been offered that increasing numbers are becoming disillusioned with organized religions because of their intolerance toward social issues. This would certainly motivate them toward the Democratic Party, but what is causing the disillusionment?

I would offer that increased access to a wide range of viewpoints (e.g., the Internet) allows people to think and choose for themselves instead of embracing “immutable” dogma.

I find that very encouraging.

Philip Parilla, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Sept. 1 edition.

My Lutheran church has many compassionate, progressive, Obama-voting members who worship every Sunday. The only reason people who call themselves religious vote Republican is that the GOP has corrupted too many churches. The GOP gave churches power because they knew power corrupts, and it did. Now, in many churches, the love and teachings of Jesus Christ have been replaced by the greed and “objectivism” of Ayn Rand. Whenever the religious right confronts a contradiction between the GOP (Rand) platform and the teachings of Jesus, they always choose the GOP over Jesus.

Jesus taught us to care for the poor, heal the sick, pay taxes to “Caesar,” and not judge our neighbors. Does that sound like the GOP? When the religious right claims such teachings are only for the next life, they forget the Lord’s Prayer: “thy will be done, on earth as it in heaven.”

Joan Jacobson, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Sept. 1 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2]. Follow eLetters[3] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Atheists tend to be more “Liberal” and Democratic……and Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Fundamental Christians tend to be more “Conservative” and Republican………and those of other faiths tend to follow along the same pattern depending on how there “worldview” is shaped by their religion, their philosophies, and their ideologies.

Those who believe in God and a heaven and a hell and in right and wrong and that there will be a Judgment Day when God will hold us accountable for what we did, said, thought, defended, taught, condoned, and encouraged…….tend to be more “Conservative” and Republican……..than those who don’t believe in God, reject the concept of an “eternity” “somewhere,” believe in “relativism” and that mankind can make up whatever rules we want to…….who, logically, tend to be more “Liberal” and Democratic.

One’s religion……or even lack of one…..is one of the things that shapes our worldview…….and the worldview of Communists, Socialists, Emperors, Kings, Queens, Dictators, and Presidents…….that helps us to “treat others as we would want to be treated” or “kill, slaughter, rape, and pillage” because they can.

It is that “worldview” that is shaped by one’s religion and relationship with God…..or the complete lack of one…….that either says ‘no’ or defends the slaughter of 50 million living human lives since 1973 via abortion…….and that either says ‘no’ or defends the Liberalized Sexual Freedom that has lead to the current status of 100 million cases of STDs in this country……with another 20 million occurring in the next 12 months…..and so much suffering and pain and heartache and misery for those who suffer and have DIED because of the consequences of that Liberalized Sexual Freedom.

And just like that old song where “a horse and carriage go together like love and marriage”……..one’s religion helps shape one’s political thinking. They go together.

And that’s probably one of the reasons our Founding Fathers even dated the Constitution of the United States with the words “in the year of our Lord”:

#2 Comment By peterpi On August 31, 2013 @ 7:28 pm

There’s been a lot of killing, slaughtering, raping, and pillaging in the name of religion. Oopsie.

#3 Comment By Rob On August 31, 2013 @ 8:38 pm

Wow, Joan education is a good thing. Helps prevent brain washing, you may want to try it sometime soon.

#4 Comment By irisman On August 31, 2013 @ 8:56 pm

Hi robtf, I knew I would find you here.

#5 Comment By peterpi On August 31, 2013 @ 9:29 pm

Wherever there’s a chance to portray all liberals, free-thinkers, agnostics, and atheists as dooming us all to Hell, Robtf is there.
Wherever there is a chance to portray ever-diabolical Democrats and ever-righteous Republicans, Robtf is there.

#6 Comment By peterpi On August 31, 2013 @ 9:30 pm

That original commentary was simplistic tripe.

#7 Comment By ThePyro On September 1, 2013 @ 8:11 am

I have to agree with pete’s earlier comment, and Mr. Parilla’s assertion. The article is simplistic tripe, provides no solid foundation for the tracking the authors assert and contains errors that have somehow become legend, even amongst the learned.

The assertion that Colorado was at one time a “red state” is hogwash – all one needs to do is look at the list of politicians over the last few decades to know that this has always been a “purple state” – we’ve flipped between red and blue more times that John Kerry and Mitt Romney put together. If one looks really hard, we’ve had more Democratic representation, and for longer periods of time, than we’ve had Republican.

Also that “Republican Cities” are the only ones limiting pot shops and medical marijuana is junk science. The various cities and towns making such limits run the gambit with regard to their current Mayors and Councils, and have the same “purple” history as the rest of the state.

And that more aggressive social movement has come “all of a sudden”, and that it was somehow held back by religiosity in the past, is foolishness only college professors could get away with. When I moved out here in the early 1990s, there was a large influx of East and West Coasters, both bastions of liberlism and Democratic affiliation. Those folks, in addition to those already here at the time, are now ingrained in the society and affecting local and national politics. It has taken more than a decade to become visible, but 15 to 20 year trends are common with every large movement of people.

There may be way more basis to the authors’ opinion, and I’d expect there is given typical peer review mentality amongst college professors. But, as presented here, the article seems fundamentally (pun intended) flawed.

#8 Comment By irisman On September 1, 2013 @ 8:47 am

It’s no surprise that people who are politically conservative tend to join conservative churches. It’s quite another thing to claim that one group or other are better Christians. Even within the same denomination there are liberal and conservative congregations. I’ll leave the judgement to people who are wiser and more virtuous than me.

#9 Comment By toohip On September 1, 2013 @ 10:51 am

LOL, the ultimate “duh!” observation. . that extremely religious people vote Republican. I have this same argument with my “religious left” cousin an ordained ELCA Lutheran ministor and several of my “Lutheran” cousins and friends who claim there is no such connection as Ms Jacobson does. The reality they miss, is that neither of these Dem-voting “Christians” let their religion decide their political or personal morays, and are merely “cafeteria” Christians merely slow-walking the talk. The fact that Jesus was a liberal by definition flies in the face of the religious right, and is the ultimate hypocrisy of this ilk, but such is the nature of religion. It’s anything you want it to be, or what the religious leaders want it to be, or what the faithful want it to be. Hence, undefined “belief.”

And WHY our founder realized there needed to be a separation of religion and government.

I agree with everything you have posted but I think you meant “mores”, not “morays”.

#14 Comment By ThePyro On September 1, 2013 @ 11:40 am

Not convenient…matter of public record. Look at the list of Governors, US Senators, US Representatives, State Senators and so on – purple, all the way. Do the same with Colorado’s support of local and national policies over the last few decades – purple. Examine both the historic and current voter registrations and declarations – previously evenly split between Democratic and Republican parties, now evenly split between Democratic, Republican and independents. Factual statistics and objective examinations float my boat…and there’s plenty of water for it in this case.

#15 Comment By DR On September 1, 2013 @ 12:34 pm

“The fact that Jesus was a liberal by definition flies in the face of the religious right, and is the ultimate hypocrisy of this ilk, but such is the nature of religion. It’s anything you want it to be, or what the religious leaders want it to be, or what the faithful want it to be. Hence, undefined “belief.””
————————

Agreed. If I really want to hammer the point (and I will this time) I submit that not one single Christian on this Earth (that includes you Robtf777) actually believes anything they espouse other than “Jesus is God” (which directly contradicts the Bible btw) and “I’m going to heaven”. If Christians actually followed Jesus’ teachings, all of them, this world, our lives and our culture would be almost unrecognizable. They wouldn’t live the lives that they do.

#16 Comment By peterpi On September 1, 2013 @ 3:42 pm

You got that right.
And I agree with your statement ” ‘Jesus is God’ (which directly contradicts the Bible btw)”

A careful reading of St. Paul’s letters (the earliest Christian writings) don’t support such a claim, and the gospels came decades after Jesus of Nazareth’s death, and were written with an aim toward evangelizing various target audiences, and not written as “just the facts, ma’am” truth.
I know Robtf will tell God to smite me, but I think a careful reading of the gospels or Pauline letters does not support the Trinity either.
Not to mention that a vast change, or, um, evolution, took place in early Christian theology between the writing of the Pauline letters, the Gospel of Mark, and the writing of the Gospel of John.

Now, DR, please step back 1,000 ft after reading this to avoid the blast effect of the thunderbolt I’m allegedly about to be hit by.

#17 Comment By primafacie On September 1, 2013 @ 4:15 pm

“The only reason people who call themselves religious vote Republican is that the GOP has corrupted too many churches.”

===

That, of course, is silly and simplistic.

There are people who call themselves religious who vote Republican because they happen to agree with Republican positions on certain issues. Others vote Democrat because they agree with Democrat positions on certain issues.

And, by the way, the same is true for those who don’t consider themselves particularly religious.

#18 Comment By peterpi On September 1, 2013 @ 4:32 pm

Both Ms. Jacobsen’s letter “and” the original guest commentary were far too simplistic, I agree.

God would have no reason to strike you with a thunderbolt and the Bible offers no evidence of God caring about the words of someone who is raging against Him. Now, about some of the other untruths you wrote, Jesus is God is clearly stated in the Bible in John 1:1. Now, about the Gospels being written to target audiences, you are partially right. Matthew was a Jew who was also a tax collector. He used more OT passages to support his points. Luke was a doctor and a gentile who took careful notes after interviewing several people who actually walked and talked with Jesus. You can see proof of this when he writes “Mary pondered these thing…” John wrote from the closest perspective since he was the disciple Jesus loved.

Now, about this alleged “evolution” in Christian theology. What proof do you offer of this. On the contrary, if you read the Gospel, you will find corroboration between the words of Paul, Peter and John-epistle writers, and the Gospels. Give me an example of evolution so that I can shoot it down.

#20 Comment By thor On September 2, 2013 @ 4:13 am

Jesus was apolitical. He came to seek and save that which was lost. He did not come to establish any form of government. However, you are right when you write that many of His words mirror liberal thought. But the Democratic Party has long ago stopped being liberal and have become overrun by Progressive ideology.

#21 Comment By tomfromthenews On September 2, 2013 @ 7:29 am

I would love to hear you explain the difference between being liberal and being progressive. This ought to be good.

#22 Comment By thor On September 2, 2013 @ 8:09 am

Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems. This is the accurate description of liberals today. However, traditionally, liberals are those who give freely and are generous.

From David Brooks in the NYT: Today, liberalism seems to have changed. Today, many progressives seem to believe that government is the horse, the source of growth, job creation and prosperity. Capitalism is just a feeding trough that government can use to fuel its expansion. Jesus exemplified traditional liberalism, not today’s version of liberalism and for sure not the liberalism that has been invaded by Progressive ideology.

#23 Comment By tomfromthenews On September 2, 2013 @ 9:01 am

That’s a neat little response and I congratulate you.

However, your generalities and vagueness present some problems. How can there be a higher goal for a government “of, by, and for the people”, to paraphrase Lincoln, than to be instrumental in improving the lives of those who have not yet achieved civil liberties and individual and human rights in a nation that touts itself as the place to achieve them? No one believes the role of the government is to “guarantee” that no one is in need, but how can that humanitarian government stand by and not do what it can to further that goal? Leo Tolstoy asked the question, “What then must we do?” when faced with addressable ills in society. To play in your ballpark, even Luke (3:10) was asked the same question: “‘What then shall we do?’ And he answered them, ‘He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise’.” If that’s holy advice for just, compassionate individuals, then why not just, compassionate nations and governments?

To address Mr. Brooks, who you seem to paraphrase, what is one of the greatest criticisms any president receives? Why, failure to “create jobs”, to “grow the economy”, all the things you (he) are saying are not the job of the government to do. Well, man, you can’t have it both ways.

If you are going to criticize “progressives” for not being more like “traditional liberals”, then you need to do more than just play semantic word games. It still sounds pretty much the same to me.

#24 Comment By thor On September 2, 2013 @ 9:29 am

How to deconstruct the words you wrote and how you vainly attempted to twist my words. Let’s begin and see how it goes.
1. Your second paragraph needs to be broken down into two parts instead of the one that you ran into one thought. a. part one- the bastardizing of Lincoln’s words. you attached Lincoln’s words to civil liberties and human rights. Lincoln wasn’t implying that it was governments role to improve peoples lives. b. humanitarian government- where in the Constitution do you read that government is to be humanitarian? Which leads to Luke 3:10. Never take Scripture out of context. John the Baptist was asked that question after He scolded the crowd for being a brood of vipers. They were looking for validation so that they could be baptized. He wasn’t offering liberal policies to them. And don’t confuse the work of the church with the work of government. The primary source of aid should come first from the church, not the government. And it has. Convoy of Hope showed up before the government after the storm that ripped the East Coast and stayed, along with the Salvation Army, long after the government relief moved on.

2. I didn’t paraphrase David Brooks, I copied and pasted his exact words. As for presidents being criticized for a lack of jobs and not growing the economy. Man, you are clueless as to why they get credit or criticism. A President can move the economy along, like Reagan did with his policies, or stymie an economy with his policies, like President Obama has. Over-burdensome regulations (not sensible regulations), high corporate taxes and the introduction of Obamacare have almost killed our economy. Why are we proud of slow growth when we should have explosive growth.

3. Are you a Progressive or a traditional liberal? They do not, in any way, sound pretty much the same. That’s why people like Hillary have made a purposeful decision to use the word progressive.

#25 Comment By tomfromthenews On September 2, 2013 @ 10:02 am

1. I simply stated that Lincoln denoted our American government as “of the people, by the people, and [last, for emphasis:] FOR the people”. That’s all. “For” implies “for their use”, “for their edification”. My calling the government “humanitarian” comes directly from Lincoln’s phrase “for the people”. That’s just my reading of it. And doesn’t it seem that Luke was offering advice for moral behavior in general? I read conservative pundits all the time who want government to echo the virtues of scripture. Why not here? Why not in this case? And as far as confusing the work of the church with that of the government, again look at the record of modern conservatives who whore themselves out to Tea Partyers and extreme religious conservatives all the time with promises to make America more “moral” by adhering to biblical teachings, fighting women’s reproductive rights, denying marriage to loving couples, etc., etc. They seem to be the ones who are confused.

2. I said you paraphrased Brooks because you did not use quotation marks, so how was I to know? His “quote” explicitly states that (criticizes) what he calls “progressives'” belief that governments (current administrations) are “the source of growth, job creation and prosperity”, but when the economy declines or jobless rates increase, it’s that very government that is criticized for not doing more to prevent it. Well, I ask, ARE governments the source for these things or AREN’T they?! Then you say, “a President can move the economy along”… like our current one which is STILL climbing and improving after the September, 2008, pre-Obama crash? It’s been make slow, steady progress, so why not credit Obama for that?

Unfortunately, I fear the smoke will never clear for you and you will never be able to see out of the Republican bubble.

#26 Comment By thor On September 2, 2013 @ 11:53 am

Nor you the Democratic bubble. So what? Now, about progress under Obama. Why is slow and steady acceptable? Why can no Democrat admit he is and has been a very weak, yet ideologically driven President? And, no, the government should not be the source for economic things. But their policies can help or hurt. Not a hard concept to understand.

You really made some odd statements in your first paragraph. You skewed what Lincoln said to fit your ideology, but complain that Republicans do the same with Scripture. The fact is, I don’t approve of anyone misusing Scripture to advance any cause but the Kingdom of God. Advancing the virtues of Scripture is not misusing Scripture as long as you are using it as a guideline and not for a condition of Salvation. And there are other moral teachings, like those of Aesop, that also bring virtue to society.

Now, about this passage you wrote-” again look at the record of modern conservatives who whore themselves out to Tea Partyers and extreme religious conservatives all the time with promises to make America more “moral” by adhering to biblical
teachings, fighting women’s reproductive rights, denying marriage to loving couples, etc., etc.”

Whore themselves? Dumb. TEA Partiers, not tea Partyers. TEA stands for “Taxed Enough Already and includes Democrats and Independents. What promises are you talking about? And why does the woman’s perceived rights trump the babies? And why should gays be the only loving couples to be allowed to marry? Why not a man and his dog? Better yet, why not leave marriage alone and accept civil unions?

#27 Comment By primafacie On September 3, 2013 @ 12:19 pm

I’ll bite: The difference is nomenclature, and in the case of “progressive” someone thought that sounded better.

Am I close?

#28 Comment By JohnDoe On September 3, 2013 @ 3:18 pm

Atheists like you crack me up. Why can’t any of you just admit that you hate God. God has given us plenty of evidence for his existence. People like you deny it so you can continue to hate God and live by your own rules. We don’t believe what we espouse? Are you kidding me? And what teachings of Jesus are we ignoring? How exactly should our lives and culture be? Or should we be moral relativists like you? Anything goes in your worldview, its all good ‘eh DR? I consider myself lucky that I not only found God but have a personal relationship with our Holy Father. I pray that someday you find him too, but I have doubts that you ever will. You’ve been so completely brainwashed in your atheist/evolution religion (of which there is no evidence for by the way) that I doubt you will ever see the light.